Common Challenges Faced by Neurodivergent Employees (part 2 of 4)

Neurodivergent individuals face many different challenges in the workforce. Documenting them all would be the work of several books, but we can share a brief overview of them here.

It’s perhaps common to address these challenges in terms of diagnoses or conditions, but given the historical discrimination, stigmatization, and prejudice associated with many of these, we’ll instead address them in terms of neurological function. Everyone’s brain works a little differently, but it can be hard to identify what that actually means for them. Breaking it down into specific aspects of brain function can make it a little easier to understand why certain challenges arise. This is part 2 of 4 - see part 1 here if you missed it or need a refresher! In this entry, we'll take a look at the neurological functions of Emotional Regulation, Cognitive Flexibility, Memory Processing, and Logical/Intuitive Processing.

Emotional Regulation

Emotional regulation encompasses the ability of our brains to recognize, understand, and modulate emotional responses in various situations. This neurological function spans a spectrum from high regulation (maintaining calm under stress) to low regulation (experiencing intense emotional responses that may be difficult to manage). Neither approach is right or wrong, but workplaces often act like there's only one acceptable way to feel.

The Interview Trap

Traditional hiring processes may inadvertently screen out individuals whose emotional regulation falls at either end of the spectrum and often are based on organizational norms rather than job requirements. Stress-inducing questions designed to “see how you handle pressure” rarely reflect actual job demands and instead measure conformity to expected regulation styles.

Individuals with high emotional regulation might come across as lacking passion or interest, while candidates with lower emotional regulation may be perceived as "too emotional" or "unprofessional" when showing authentic reactions during interviews. It’s a no-win scenario that screens out talented people, even when their emotional responsiveness would be an asset in roles requiring empathy or emotional intelligence.

Additionally, behavioral interview questions about handling conflict or stress often have hidden "right answers" that favor specific regulation styles rather than assessing actual job capability. It’s perhaps ironic that firms looking for passionate, dedicated employees end up screening out many worthwhile candidates simply because they are often passionate.

One manager I know spent months repeating the same feedback about a single moment when an employee briefly showed emotion on their face during a particularly difficult situation. The same manager then wondered why the team wasn't bonding. The irony was lost on them.

The Performance Review Minefield

Even if someone with high or low regulation makes it past the hiring process, performance reviews can become just another emotional regulation test. Annual reviews or feedback sessions that deliver criticism without consideration for emotional processing differences can trigger stress and anxiety. Managers expect you to receive feedback in a specific way: usually with calm acceptance. Show too much reaction and you're "defensive." Show too little and you "don't care enough." Some individuals who are aware of their own differences may express a preference for receiving feedback in writing, but many managers do not consistently respect or adhere to these requests, and persist in delivering verbal feedback.

Creating Space for Real Emotions

For employees with high emotional regulation, their measured responses may be misinterpreted as indifference or lack of investment. Their calm approach to challenges might be seen as not taking problems seriously enough. Conversely, employees with lower emotional regulation may be labeled as "difficult" or "dramatic" when they express authentic reactions to workplace situations. When people are constantly managing their emotional expression to fit narrow expectations, they don't have energy left for genuine relationships. The solution isn't complicated. Organizations need to recognize that emotional regulation differences are neurological variations, not character flaws. Multiple feedback channels, processing time, and spaces for authentic expression benefit everyone.

The emotional climate of a workplace can also significantly impact individuals with different regulation patterns. Environments with frequent crises, tight deadlines, or high emotional intensity can create chronic stress for those with lower emotional regulation. The cumulative effect of constantly managing emotional responses in these settings leads to burnout and decreased performance. The physical workspace itself can influence emotional regulation. Lack of private spaces for processing difficult news or recovering from emotional interactions forces employees to manage complex emotions in public. Open office plans without acoustic privacy mean that conversations about sensitive topics can be overheard, creating additional regulation demands.

The solution isn't complicated. Organizations need to recognize that emotional regulation differences are neurological variations, not character flaws. Multiple feedback channels, processing time, and spaces for authentic expression benefit everyone.

Cognitive Flexibility

Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to adapt thinking and behavior in response to changing circumstances. This neurological function exists on a spectrum from high flexibility (adaptive, comfortable with ambiguity) to low flexibility (preferring consistency and clear structures). These differences fundamentally shape how individuals approach problem-solving, navigate change, and interact with workplace systems and processes.

Look at any job posting and you'll probably see "adaptability" and "comfort with ambiguity" listed as requirements. But here's the thing: most jobs don't actually need high cognitive flexibility. We've just decided it sounds good. This creates a hiring bias against people who thrive with structure and clear parameters and who thus struggle with open-ended case studies or ambiguous problem-solving exercises, even though they may be incredibly skilled at the actual work. Meanwhile, highly flexible thinkers may get frustrated by rigid interview processes that don't let them demonstrate their adaptive problem-solving.

Assessment methodologies often fail to recognize that cognitive flexibility exists on a spectrum with complementary strengths at each end. Hiring managers frequently view high flexibility as universally desirable without recognizing the value of consistency, reliability, and careful analysis that comes with lower flexibility. Expecting every individual to demonstrate the strengths of both extremes (and none of the limitations!) is common, but extraordinarily unrealistic. Instead, it leads to selecting the individual who can “fake it” the best in that moment.

The Change Management Myth

Organizations love to talk about "embracing change," but they rarely consider that people process transitions differently. Some jump right in, others need time to adjust. Both approaches have value, but only one gets celebrated. When companies announce frequent reorganizations with shifting priorities and unclear timelines, they're essentially saying, "If you can't adapt at our pace, in our way, you don't belong here." That's not innovation; that's exclusion - of the very employees who could be making valuable contributions to stability, quality control, and careful implementation. Organizational change initiatives thus often assume a universal capacity for rapid adaptation without accounting for cognitive diversity - and as a result, some 70-80% of them fail.

The obsession with flexibility means we often overlook the incredible value of people who bring consistency, careful analysis, and thoughtful implementation. These aren't limitations; they're complementary strengths that make teams more effective. Smart organizations provide clear information about changes, allow adjustment time, and create predictable elements within changing situations. This supports everyone, regardless of their cognitive flexibility profile.

Memory Processing

Memory processing describes how we encode, store, and retrieve information. This cognitive ability exists on a spectrum from exceptionally strong memory (detailed, vivid recall) to weaker memory (difficulty retaining or accessing information). Both styles can be incredibly effective, but workplaces often assume everyone's memory works the same way.

Behavioral interviews often unintentionally screen out qualified candidates with different memory processing styles. “Tell me about a time when” questions rely on rapid recall of past experiences, creating challenges for candidates who process memory differently, even if they might be brilliant at their job. Additionally, the expectation to remember names, titles, and details about multiple interviewers creates an unnecessary memory challenge before substantive evaluation even begins. Meanwhile, interview questions about "biggest challenges" or "failures" may be difficult for people with exceptional memory, as they can get overwhelmed trying to choose just one example from their extensive mental catalog of experiences.

The Annual Review Challenge

Performance management systems frequently penalize memory differences without measuring actual job performance. Annual reviews that expect detailed self-assessment of achievements throughout the year disadvantages people who don't naturally catalog their accomplishments but excel at their daily work. The ability to remember what you did in March shouldn't determine whether you get promoted or get labeled as a poor performer.

Managers often interpret memory variations as lack of attention or commitment rather than neurological differences. For employees with exceptional memory, their detailed recall of past discussions or decisions may be perceived as dwelling on the past or being unwilling to move forward. Conversely, employees with weaker memory might be labeled as "careless" or "inattentive" when they need information repeated or documented, even when they excel in their core responsibilities.

Meeting cultures that rely on verbal information sharing without adequate documentation also disadvantage those with different memory processing. The common practice of discussing important details without capturing action items or decisions creates artificial barriers to participation and contribution - hence the simple best practice of summarizing meeting “action items and key points” in writing afterwards. Similarly, the expectation to recall conversations or commitments without written confirmation places undue emphasis on memory rather than accountability.

Modern workplaces create memory challenges that didn't exist before. Multiple communication channels, complex digital systems, countless passwords and procedures: we're testing memory capacity instead of actual job skills. The worst part? Much of this is unnecessary. Organizations that implement good documentation systems, clear information architecture, and accessible knowledge management find that memory differences become irrelevant. When information is easy to find, everyone can focus on doing great work.

Logical / Intuitive Processing

Here's something most workplaces won't admit: they have a favorite type of thinker. And if you're not that type? Good luck proving your worth.

We all process information differently. Some of us are deeply logical: we love sequential reasoning, detailed analysis, and step-by-step problem-solving. Others are more intuitive: we see patterns, make connections, and arrive at solutions through holistic thinking. Both approaches are valuable, but guess which one most organizations actually reward?

The Interview Gauntlet

Think about a typical job interview. Those case studies, with their "correct" approaches, are usually designed for logical, sequential thinkers (as well as for ease of evaluation!). If you're someone who solves problems through pattern recognition or gets insights by seeing the big picture first, you might struggle to articulate your brilliant solution in the "right" way.

I've seen this play out many times: an intuitive thinker nails the problem but can't explain their step-by-step process because that's not how their brain works. Meanwhile, a logical processor might excel at walking through their methodology but struggle when asked to "think outside the box" without clear parameters. The kicker is that interview panels usually consist of people who all think similarly, so they keep hiring more people who think like them, missing out on the cognitive diversity that actually drives innovation.

Performance Reviews That Miss the Point

The bias doesn't stop at hiring. Performance evaluations often reward detailed documentation and methodical approaches while undervaluing contributions that can't be easily traced through linear thinking. One employee I knew consistently predicted market trends months or even years ahead of competitors but couldn't document exactly how he knew. Instead of recognizing this valuable intuitive processing, they ignored him - and lost market share in the process. Conversely, for employees with logical processing preferences, feedback that emphasizes "thinking outside the box" without providing clear parameters can create frustration and confusion.

Decision-making in many organizations inadvertently prefer a specific cognitive style. Formal processes that require extensive data analysis before action may disadvantage employees whose intuitive processing allows them to recognize emerging patterns early, while fast-paced environments that expect quick decisions without time for methodical analysis can create barriers for more logical processors.

Then there's how we're expected to communicate. Report formats, presentation templates, meeting structures: they're typically designed for one cognitive style. If you organize information differently, you're expected to translate your thinking into someone else's preferred format. It's exhausting to constantly adapt your natural processing style to fit someone else's template, especially when your approach might actually be more effective for the task at hand.

The irony is that organizations desperately need both types of thinkers. Logical processors excel at thorough analysis and implementation. Intuitive processors spot emerging patterns and innovative solutions. Why would you want only half of that cognitive power? Smart organizations are starting to recognize this. They're creating multiple pathways for communication, offering different types of performance metrics, and designing interview processes that don't accidentally screen out half the talent pool. When you only value one way of thinking, you're not just missing out on great employees; you're missing out on the breakthrough insights that come from true cognitive diversity.

Moving Forward

These challenges aren't inevitable; they're the result of systems designed around narrow assumptions about how brains should work. The good news is that small changes can make huge differences. When we create workplaces that accommodate different neurological styles, everyone benefits.

The goal isn't to lower standards or make exceptions. It's to recognize that neurological diversity brings complementary strengths that make organizations more effective, innovative, and resilient. We just need to stop testing for conformity and start evaluating actual capabilities.

In our next post, we'll explore three additional neurological functions and their workplace implications. Once you start seeing these patterns, it becomes clear just how much talent we're currently overlooking - and how much stronger we could all become together.